California OC Offensive Strategy: Use E-Check to Bring Back Loaded OC

My apologies if this is a repeat...but has anyone challenged the E(mpty) Check in court?

It is clearly an infringement on the right to bear arms, as is requiring firearms to be unloaded. Is there a particularly notorious E-check that we can establish a legal fund for? How about a class action lawsuit?

Open Carry advocates need to go on the offense and score big! We need to retake lost ground. Otherwise, the State legislature will keep beating their drums until OC is completely 'illegal'. I can't think of a better way than to bring back Loaded Open Carry (LOC).

What do you guys think? LOC'd and loaded!

No one has filed a lawsuit or challenged it in court as far as I know.

I am guessing the reason would be that you would either need a major legal group to fund it or pay for it yourself.

There doesnt seem to be any major legal groups that give a hoot about (e) checks.

I heard there was a criminal case....no citation....that an (e) check is an inspection and did not violate the 4th amendment. Probably something similar to truck inspection and weigh stations. This was before Heller and McDonald.

There are legal machinations and strategies that are not widely published. They are kept quiet so they can be bear the fruit that we all desire. I believe that there is something already afoot with 12031. If you want some idea on when this will bear fruit, all I will say is 'two weeks'. As for the plantiff, your guess is as good as mine.

I have to concur, there are things going on we dont see or hear about but are strategic in changing things.

I say focus on increasing UOC numbers, more outings, groups and solo. Ask for an appointment to speak to your local LE chief or senior officer. Sit down with them with all your UOC info and the Penal Codes let em know your law abiding and your gonna carry in their town. Be the change and win hearts and minds.

Gundude said:

I heard there was a criminal case....no citation....that an (e) check is an inspection and did not violate the 4th amendment. Probably something similar to truck inspection and weigh stations. This was before Heller and McDonald.

Click to expand...

People v. DeLong (1970) 11 Cal.App.3d 786 , 90 Cal.Rptr. 193

Bearing in mind that a state is free, as Chief Justice Warren put it, "to develop its own law of search and seizure to meet the needs of local law enforcement," provided, of course, that the Fourth Amendment standard of reasonableness be not offended (Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 60-61 [20 L.Ed.2d 917, 933-934, 88 S.Ct. 1889]), we hold that the mere examination of a weapon which is brought into a place where it is [11 Cal.App.3d 793] forbidden to have a loaded weapon, is not unreasonable and that the statutes authorizing such examination are constitutional.

Click to expand...

If Chester holds, then anybody should be able to challenge 12031 pretty easily IMO. Just take Chester's implied strict scrutiny for "law-abiding, reasonable citizens", add in Heller's "functional firearm" language, and any other supporting cases that arise by the time somebody bothers to challenge it. Strict scrutiny is very difficult to overcome, so as long as we have strict scrutiny we are golden.

Bearing in mind that a state is free, as Chief Justice Warren put it, "to develop its own law of search and seizure to meet the needs of local law enforcement," provided, of course, that the Fourth Amendment standard of reasonableness be not offended (Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 60-61 [20 L.Ed.2d 917, 933-934, 88 S.Ct. 1889]), we hold that the mere examination of a weapon which is brought into a place where it is [11 Cal.App.3d 793] forbidden to have a loaded weapon, is not unreasonable and that the statutes authorizing such examination are constitutional.

Brought into ahhh ummmm public?

Gundude said:

Bearing in mind that a state is free, as Chief Justice Warren put it, "to develop its own law of search and seizure to meet the needs of local law enforcement," provided, of course, that the Fourth Amendment standard of reasonableness be not offended (Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 60-61 [20 L.Ed.2d 917, 933-934, 88 S.Ct. 1889]), we hold that the mere examination of a weapon which is brought into a place where it is [11 Cal.App.3d 793] forbidden to have a loaded weapon, is not unreasonable and that the statutes authorizing such examination are constitutional.

Brought into ahhh ummmm public?

Click to expand...

Uhm... No.

Loaded weapons are prohibited in certain public areas, not all. Loaded open carry, such as in unincorporated territory where discharge is not prohibited by local ordinance. So- their holding is that it is not unreasonable to inspect for the loaded condition in areas where loaded firearms or discharge is prohibited when an individual brings a weapon into those areas.

On the other hand, it could be construed that it WOULD be unreasonable for an inspection for loaded condition where it is not unlawful to possess loaded weapons.

I always

Firemark said:

I have to concur, there are things going on we dont see or hear about but are strategic in changing things.

I say focus on increasing UOC numbers, more outings, groups and solo. Ask for an appointment to speak to your local LE chief or senior officer. Sit down with them with all your UOC info and the Penal Codes let em know your law abiding and your gonna carry in their town. Be the change and win hearts and minds.

Click to expand...

I always call to talk to them and make an appointment and they never return my calls.

In addition the chief of CMPD was put on administrative leave and nobody wants to talk about it. Something is going on.

ConditionThree said:

There are legal machinations and strategies that are not widely published. They are kept quiet so they can be bear the fruit that we all desire. I believe that there is something already afoot with 12031. If you want some idea on when this will bear fruit, all I will say is 'two weeks'. As for the plantiff, your guess is as good as mine.

Click to expand...

Interesting...please keep us updated!

This is a great learning process for me. I've never heard of any of these cases. The legal strategy I had in mind is much simpler...but may be harder to win, because it is based on challenging the law itself. It is not enforceable law, if it conflicts with the Constitution(s)

PREMISE: States are required to uphold the U.S. Constitution, including the Bill of Rights

2nd Amendment "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed."

o Isn't ammunition integral to a firearm; and not being able to immediately defend against a criminal with a loaded gun a HUGE infringement? Loaded open carry was the legal precedent until 1967....

Article XIV "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of Citizens of the United States...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"; California Constitution Article I clearly affirms this U.S. Article.

o How can this be/has this been interpreted? It is obvious that LEOs need to be ready to defend themselves against criminals (right to self-defense), so they carry loaded. Then wouldn't a law prohibiting this same right to self-defense, to every other U.S. citizen, be a denial of the equal protection of the laws?

P.S. The latter could/should also be applied to 'traffic law'.

Firemark said:

I have to concur, there are things going on we dont see or hear about but are strategic in changing things.

I say focus on increasing UOC numbers, more outings, groups and solo. Ask for an appointment to speak to your local LE chief or senior officer. Sit down with them with all your UOC info and the Penal Codes let em know your law abiding and your gonna carry in their town. Be the change and win hearts and minds.

Click to expand...

Why not do BOTH? We've got a battalion sized membership ready to go.

steele said:

This is a great learning process for me. I've never heard of any of these cases. The legal strategy I had in mind is much simpler...but may be harder to win, because it is based on challenging the law itself. It is not enforceable law, if it conflicts with the Constitution(s)

PREMISE: States are required to uphold the U.S. Constitution, including the Bill of Rights

2nd Amendment "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed."

o Isn't ammunition integral to a firearm; and not being able to immediately defend against a criminal with a loaded gun a HUGE infringement? Loaded open carry was the legal precedent until 1967....

Article IV "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of Citizens of the United States...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"; California Constitution Article I clearly affirms this U.S. Article.

o How can this be/has this been interpreted? It is obvious that LEOs need to be ready to defend themselves against criminals (right to self-defense), so they carry loaded. Then wouldn't a law prohibiting this same right to self-defense, to every other U.S. citizen, be a denial of the equal protection of the laws?

P.S. The latter could/should also be applied to 'traffic law'.

Click to expand...

steele said:

Why not do BOTH? We've got a battalion sized membership ready to go.

Click to expand...

I second that motion...let's do it!

ConditionThree said:

Uhm... No.

Loaded weapons are prohibited in certain public areas, not all. Loaded open carry, such as in unincorporated territory where discharge is not prohibited by local ordinance. So- their holding is that it is not unreasonable to inspect for the loaded condition in areas where loaded firearms or discharge is prohibited when an individual brings a weapon into those areas.

On the other hand, it could be construed that it WOULD be unreasonable for an inspection for loaded condition where it is not unlawful to possess loaded weapons.

Click to expand...

And based on these arguments, the only way we can make this ruling work for us is to get a ruling from a court or for a legislation to remove/change/repel/amend/ the areas where one can legally carry a loaded firearm.

steele said:

This is a great learning process for me. I've never heard of any of these cases. The legal strategy I had in mind is much simpler...but may be harder to win, because it is based on challenging the law itself. It is not enforceable law, if it conflicts with the Constitution(s)

PREMISE: States are required to uphold the U.S. Constitution, including the Bill of Rights

2nd Amendment "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed."

o Isn't ammunition integral to a firearm; and not being able to immediately defend against a criminal with a loaded gun a HUGE infringement? Loaded open carry was the legal precedent until 1967....

Article IV "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of Citizens of the United States...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"; California Constitution Article I clearly affirms this U.S. Article.

o How can this be/has this been interpreted? It is obvious that LEOs need to be ready to defend themselves against criminals (right to self-defense), so they carry loaded. Then wouldn't a law prohibiting this same right to self-defense, to every other U.S. citizen, be a denial of the equal protection of the laws?

P.S. The latter could/should also be applied to 'traffic law'.

Click to expand...

steele said:

Why not do BOTH? We've got a battalion sized membership ready to go.

Click to expand...

DooFster said:

I second that motion...let's do it!

Click to expand...

Here's a word picture for you.

The year is 1942, the Nazi's have occupied France for about 2 years and have taken this time to fortify the French coastline. Dwight Eisenhower has just arrived in London and tells Churchill that he plans on a direct assault on Berlin with as many men as he can muster. Churchill says; "Let's do it!"

If Eisenhower actually blew into town and threw as many men as he could find without first having sufficient forces trained, equipped, and deployed in the most strategically advantageous way, and air dropped them on Berlin in the dark of night in an attempt to capture the most obvious and important target first- Europe would be ruled under the crooked cross of Nazi fascism to this very day.

It sucks, but California has been occupied by the forces of evil for nearly fifty years. Some of our gun laws have been around since before most of us were born. Hitler only took a couple of years to dig himself in- he didnt have a 40-50 year head start like the enemies of the second amendment have...and it took the combined efforts of several countries, thousands of men, thousands of planes, tanks, weapons, and military skill to invade at Normandy- and even when the Allies achieved a foothold on Europe on D-day, the war would continue for almost another year and we wouldnt win every battle.

Where incrementalism allowed unjust laws creep into our government, by incrementalism we must obliterate them, until such time it is appropriate to overthrow unjust laws with force. There is a time for strategy and a time for audacity, we need more practice at the former, before implementing the latter.

ConditionThree said:

Uhm... No.

Loaded weapons are prohibited in certain public areas, not all. Loaded open carry, such as in unincorporated territory where discharge is not prohibited by local ordinance. So- their holding is that it is not unreasonable to inspect for the loaded condition in areas where loaded firearms or discharge is prohibited when an individual brings a weapon into those areas.

On the other hand, it could be construed that it WOULD be unreasonable for an inspection for loaded condition where it is not unlawful to possess loaded weapons.

Click to expand...

If an LEO tries to do an e-check in my neck of the woods I will tell them to pound sand. I am legally allowed to LOC in 99.9% of unincorporated Kern County. An e-check isn't allowed.

Before 12031 was modified I used to always carry loaded when I OCd as I also have a CCW. At the time I would have refused an e-check because I could provide an exemption.

Now when I OC its still generally LOC because I do it in unincorporated or non prohibited areas. If ever asked under these circumstances I would of course refuse an e-check.

Its extremely rare that I ever UOC as I have other options. Who knows maybe I'll get lucky and never get e-checked. Considering I don't participate in group UOC, I suppose its possible.

ConditionThree said:

Here's a word picture for you.

The year is 1942, the Nazi's have occupied France for about 2 years and have taken this time to fortify the French coastline. Dwight Eisenhower has just arrived in London and tells Churchill that he plans on a direct assault on Berlin with as many men as he can muster. Churchill says; "Let's do it!"

If Eisenhower actually blew into town and threw as many men as he could find without first having sufficient forces trained, equipped, and deployed in the most strategically advantageous way, and air dropped them on Berlin in the dark of night in an attempt to capture the most obvious and important target first- Europe would be ruled under the crooked cross of Nazi fascism to this very day.

It sucks, but California has been occupied by the forces of evil for nearly fifty years. Some of our gun laws have been around since before most of us were born. Hitler only took a couple of years to dig himself in- he didnt have a 40-50 year head start like the enemies of the second amendment have...and it took the combined efforts of several countries, thousands of men, thousands of planes, tanks, weapons, and military skill to invade at Normandy- and even when the Allies achieved a foothold on Europe on D-day, the war would continue for almost another year and we wouldnt win every battle.

Where incrementalism allowed unjust laws creep into our government, by incrementalism we must obliterate them, until such time it is appropriate to overthrow unjust laws with force. There is a time for strategy and a time for audacity, we need more practice at the former, before implementing the latter.

Click to expand...

Oh, I understand what you're saying - I was just being sarcastic...lol...

ConditionThree said:

Here's a word picture for you.

The year is 1942, the Nazi's have occupied France for about 2 years and have taken this time to fortify the French coastline. Dwight Eisenhower has just arrived in London and tells Churchill that he plans on a direct assault on Berlin with as many men as he can muster. Churchill says; "Let's do it!"

If Eisenhower actually blew into town and threw as many men as he could find without first having sufficient forces trained, equipped, and deployed in the most strategically advantageous way, and air dropped them on Berlin in the dark of night in an attempt to capture the most obvious and important target first- Europe would be ruled under the crooked cross of Nazi fascism to this very day.

It sucks, but California has been occupied by the forces of evil for nearly fifty years. Some of our gun laws have been around since before most of us were born. Hitler only took a couple of years to dig himself in- he didnt have a 40-50 year head start like the enemies of the second amendment have...and it took the combined efforts of several countries, thousands of men, thousands of planes, tanks, weapons, and military skill to invade at Normandy- and even when the Allies achieved a foothold on Europe on D-day, the war would continue for almost another year and we wouldnt win every battle.

Where incrementalism allowed unjust laws creep into our government, by incrementalism we must obliterate them, until such time it is appropriate to overthrow unjust laws with force. There is a time for strategy and a time for audacity, we need more practice at the former, before implementing the latter.

Click to expand...

Hmmm...I don't see the need for an incremental approach, if the goals are beneficial to everyone. It is only when you are the minority and are afraid of the people paying attention to what you are doing, do you have to use such devious means. Did you see that Daily Breeze poll? We are a super majority. Furthermore, a court case is more akin to a surgical strike than a full offensive. All that is lacking is INITIATIVE.